Michael Braun v. HHS - Influenza, encephalopathy and resulting developmental delays (2019)

Michael Braun filed a petition on January 25, 2019, on behalf of his minor son, H.B., alleging that H.B. developed encephalopathy and resulting developmental delays after receiving the FluMist influenza vaccine on October 22, 2014. H.B., born May 16, 2006, had a history of speech delays and sensory issues noted from his eighteen-month well-visit.

By age five, he was diagnosed with a listening comprehension disability and began occupational and speech therapy. His six, seven, and eight-year well-visits continued to note his attendance in therapy.

At age eight, shortly after receiving the FluMist vaccine, H.B. was evaluated for inattention and learning disabilities, diagnosed with ADHD, and noted to have speech, recall, and slight motor regression. Subsequent evaluations noted regression in skills, processing issues, and severe fine motor/visual motor deficits.

Concerns for progressive neurodegenerative disorder, neuro-metabolic disorder, and mitochondrial disorder were raised. A hospitalization in June 2015 for psychosis included a concern for autism.

Dr. Rosario Trifiletti later diagnosed H.B. with autoimmune encephalopathy, believing it was related to the vaccine, though his notes were inconsistent and the onset was over a year post-vaccination.

The Special Master, Brian H. Corcoran, dismissed the petition, finding no evidence of an acute encephalopathic reaction close in time to the vaccination and noting substantial evidence of developmental problems predating the vaccine.

The Special Master noted that Petitioner had several chances to offer evidence but the record did not contain sufficient persuasive evidence establishing that H.B.'s developmental problems were initiated by the FluMist vaccine. He concluded that Petitioner would not be able to establish preponderant evidence in favor of his claim.

The court, Judge Patricia E. Campbell-Smith, affirmed the Special Master's decision on July 15, 2019, finding that the Special Master did not err in applying the correct legal standards, in dismissing the case without an expert report, or in considering the pre-vaccination medical records.

The court concluded that the Special Master's decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law. The petition was denied.